<<
If we put enough conditions, there is a good chance we will never find a
match. Greg's argument here is essentially one from silence: we find no
constructions "of KAI-joined nouns with a proper name asssociated with the
second noun, where only the first has the article." Let's turn that around
and look for a match to the Granville Sharp construction in Phil. 2:25,
where we have a proper noun "associated with" (to employ Greg's language)
an arthrous noun which is joined to an anarthrous noun by a KAI (There is
even an additional anarthrous noun in the construction, but we won't demand
that.). It is obvious that all these nouns in Phil. 2:25 refer to
Epaphroditus, but if we look for a similar construction in the NT, we find
none. (At least that was the result of a Gramcord search I performed to
look for it.) >>

David,

I perceive that you have not properly understood my contention. In the case of
Php 2:25 the proper name comes before the GS construction, and the GS
construction is in apposition to it. Regarding the adding of "enough
conditions," as you say, it is the proponents of GS that have added condition
after condition in an effort to remove potential exceptions.

Again, either sometime this evening or tomorrow morning I will send a lengthy
post detailing my position, even though I have done so several times already.

>> The idiomatic
>> and formulaic nature of these numerous instances in the papyri strongly
>> suggest that such a construction would also be understood in a unified,
>> formulaic way by the first addressees of 1 Peter. Those who are inclined
>> to deny the unity of reference for the expression TOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS
>> IHSOU CRISTOU in 1P. 1:1 may construe the expression as referring to two
>> persons, but these instances of similar constructions with QEOS and SWTHR
>> from among the papyri certainly point in the oposite direction.
>
>They don't have any relation at all to the point we are considering, namely,
>does SWTHROS IC function as a compound proper name? Or, does IC, in
apposition
>to SWTHROS, so restrict the application of SWTHROS that the repetition of
the
>article was not necessary?

<< Isn't this a methodology that depends heavily on subjective criteria. >>

It is an argument based on the comparsion of texts that have different
grammatical nuances. If you are going to enter into a discussion of GS, you
should know that the subjective element is very much involved, particularly
when it comes to classifying "exception."

<< There are a lot of questions here, but not much in the way of answers. The
theory is that the association of the second noun of what might be
considered a Granville Sharp construction with a following proper noun
breaks the expected unity of reference. This leads into questions about
the realtive value within this theory of proper nouns and quasi-proper
nouns (as well as questions of what constitutes a quasi-proper noun) and
whether expressions like SWTHROS IHSOU CRISTOU are compound proper names or
if SWTHROS, rather, funcitons as a title. These questions aren't easily
resolved in a definitive way even if the theory about proper-name
association were valid. >>

And that is precisely why we should not come to definite conclusions regarding
texts that contain nuances that create ambiguity in terms of classifying them
with other, non-similar texts.

<< In another vein on this matter, we might want to take a look at the
textual apparatus on this verse. I find that Aleph has KURIOU in place of
QEOU in the construction we are looking at in 2P. 1:1. Doesn't this
indicate that at least as early as the 4th Century this construction was
understood as referring to one person. Would anyone have trouble
identifying this whole expression as a reference to Christ if it read EN
DIKAIOSUNH TOU KURIOU hEMWN KAI SWTHROS IHSOU CRISTOU? It even seems very
possible that KURIOU was introduced to resolve some perceived theological
problem in the original text of the passage.

Regards,
David Moore >>

The variant may indicate that a person recognized that the other GS
constructions related to one person and used KYRIOS over THEOS, as THEOS
referred to the Father. With the reference to THEOS in verse two, the scribe
may have felt comfortable with changing THEOS to KYRIOS in verse one. But,
again, those texts that contain a compound proper name in the second position,
or a proper name in apposition to a noun, are similar to those texts which
contain article-noun-KAI-article-noun constructions, which also may or may not
relate both nouns to the same person. Thus, factors other than, or, I should
say in addition to syntax must be used to properly understand the passage.
Compare John 13:13 and Revelation 20:6.